Apr 18 2007
The great pensions debate
Yesterday in?? the Commons the Chancellor decided to argue that taxing pension funds was the right thing to do, and that the extra tax on dividends did not cause the problems of pension funds.
This argument required great sophistry and not a little glossing over the truth. I asked him if I took one fifth of his income away would he be worse off? Aware of what would come next he shouted out "No"! I went on to ask if?? taking one fifth of the dividend income away from pension funds would make them worse off. Proud of his decision to say he would not be worse off, he completed his logical argument that pension funds were not worse off either!
Sometimes a clever man can stretch a point too far into the realms of absurdity. Of course if someone takes one fifth of your income away you are worse off, and so too are the pension funds. There is a real argument about the relative roles of divdend tax changes, and greater longevity of pensioners in the extra financial strains on funds, but surely there cannot really be any disagreement that taking ??5billion a year away from funds was bad news for them and their members!
??
The Chancellor missed an opportunity yesterday to show some compassion for those who have lost out in the pensions crisis, and to show that he has a style that can sympathise with people, as well as a willingness to use silly arguments in a strong voice to try to beat off criticism.
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
When are the Conservatives going to really land a punch on the government? You repeatedly let them get away with blatant lies, helped by certain unquestioning sections of the media. For example, if Mr Brown really thinks that he would not be worse off if you took one fifth of his income away, then demand he make an annual charitable donation of that one fifth of his income that he clearly doesn’t need (although you will need to check he doesn’t just give it to the Smith Institute and thus get the money back in kind).
Every week at PMQ’s the Prime Minister ends up stating how wonderful the economy is - with low inflation, low interest rates, etc. etc. Everyone knows it’s pack of lies. Everyone knows that interest rates and inflation are rising. Yet not once have any of the Conservative front bench had the balls to challenge the Prime Minister on these points. The pattern of Mr Blairs response is pretty easy to predict: Totally fail to answer the question in hand, blame the Tories, accuse the Tories of being just as bad, point to how wonderful the economy is doing. Where are the well researched responses to those standard phrases and responses that he uses? Why has no one managed to tear him apart with irrefutable evidence that he is lying?
Sure things are going well for the Conservatives at the moment, but I really fear that this is more to do with the Government imploding than to the direct actions of the front bench. I really hope that this is only the perception that is being portrayed by the media, and that the Conservatives are really capable of destroying what must be the most ineffectual Governments in decades.
I watched much of the debate on television. The calibre of speeches from the Labour benches was absolutely abysmal and, to their shame, generally showed their ignorance of the subject. Brown was full of self-satisfying bluster and, as usual, threw out multitudes of selective but meaningless statistics in an attempt to confuse the argument. Hutton’s closing speech was truly appalling - did someone once seriously consider him as a future Prime Minister?!
The Conservative contributions were well argued and from a position of knowledge and understanding of the subject. Regrettably votes are just based on the most basic tribal loyalty with no regard for the merits of the motion or the strength of the debating arguments - and we call this democracy!
‘Regrettably votes are just based on the most basic tribal loyalty with no regard for the merits of the motion or the strength of the debating arguments - and we call this democracy!’ (Brian Tomkinson)
It’s the tribalists of politics that the electorate voted in. If there were more independents elected, there was always a hung parliament and a coalition, then I’m sure such votes would be a lot less predictable. It is democracy, if yopu vote Labour / Tory / LibDem then you should know that you are voting for someone with party loyalties.
Brown is an unimpressive character who has bluffed his way through the serial catastrophes of his tenure. Each minister should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. He has established a framework for pensioner poverty, now and in the future, by taxing all forms of savings. Many are disillusioned with the tory party as they wished to see thsi attack on their property shoute from the rooftops. Alas….
In the world of westminster, convention denies blame. You should hold a minster’s feet to the flame for the damage they have caused. But in the real world, these people cause real damage, end careers and destroy livelihoods. Brown’s decisions cause real hardship and suffering, in his quest for a fairer Britain. He should be held to account for that.
Why has it taken so long for this pensions swindle to become a matter of public debate? I knew what was going on bcak in 97 and as a result withdrew the modest financial support I had (more fool me) been giving to the Labour Party. On the plus side the government did at least facilitate the compensation of those who’d been swindled by the private pensions wheeze that your lot dreamt up in the 80s.